To Discriminate or Not to Discriminate, That is the Question

I fully understand why some people find religion distasteful. They see it as essentially the great con, perpetrated on the unsuspecting and the gullible in order to line the pockets of the few, at the expense of the many. I agree, at least in some cases—maybe too many cases—I also believe this to be a gross oversimplification. This short view is, in it's own way, as gullible as any religious belief. In fact, it is a religious belief of sorts. Why do I call it religion? Because it is primarily faith based. Take a few facts, weave them into a theory, and “voila” anything and everything can be explained. This is what we humans do. We need to explain the what, the why, the how. And, if our explanations fall short, well, we simply defer to faith, even if we distance ourselves from the claims of religion by calling it something else. Shakespeare said “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” You can call rotting garbage a rose, however, and it still won't smell like one.By calling our faith something other than religion—science or politics for instance—we can rest assured that we, unlike the rubes, are actually enlightened, even if we can't really explain what it is we believe. Certainly, somebody, somewhere can. This blessed assurance allows us to live with the deep conviction of truth. Conviction, being the necessary ingredient found in all faiths. In other words, take faith, add a crusade for justice, muddy the water a bit, and you can galvanize the faithful to action. They don't really need to understand what's being said, because someone else will do the interpreting for them; their leader, the president, some really smart man or woman, a priest, a politician, a scientist—anyone who speaks with authority, will do. How did these, allegedly, enlightened few get their authority? From the people, of course. Make no mistake, there are easily as many religious folk among our political classes, as there is in our houses of worship. What makes this particular kind of faith even more difficult to deal with, though, is the faithful never see their convictions as faith. For them, it is reality.Recently, Melisa Harris Perry, the professor of political science at Tulane university, formerly of Princeton and currently of MSNBC talk show fame declared “The Muslim beheading in Oklahoma was really just more workplace violence.” Stating “That's how she read it anyway” the word “read” being the operative term here. She apparently used her interpretive powers to correctly “read” from the evidence, the hidden subtext, forgoing the actual evidence, such as the killers confession. Or, the statements of the witnesses to the crime. Instead, Ms. Perry filtered the evidence like a blind person groping an elephant, searching for clues as to it's nature and concluded that it must be a flea, or possibly some other tiny thing. You see, if you ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions, no matter how glaring the omission, anything can be true! “Islam had nothing to do with it, so, get over it right-wingers.” That seemed to be her perspective. That is apparently what she wanted to believe, so that's what she believed. I never knew that Tulane and Princeton were such deeply convicted religious institutions. Clearly, I was wrong! If this isn't religion, I don't know what you'd call it, personal delusion maybe. There are other terms like; idiot, willfully blind and cognitive dissonance, the latter sounds like science, so maybe that will do. Either way, it appears to have infected the media, much of the public and many of our politicians. There is no need to ask why? The answer is simple enough; because they want it to be true. Their reasons, well, that's more complex. Since most come from ivy league colleges, perhaps we'll find an answer there. Ms. Harris Perry's success might give us a glimpse into the modern academy as a religious institution with indoctrination on it's mind. The media, then, takes the best and the brightest—defined as such by their own highly subjective standards—and extends it's welcoming hand for those with the correct beliefs. Here's the thing; evidence, is evidence, is evidence! If not, there is no truth, just opinion. And, if there's nothing more than personal opinion, because there is no truth, then, no one is right. So, why even bother making your case. It will, after all, just be “Your” case. No more valid for me, than for my dog. That is where we are as a nation—and much of the civilized world. The inability to reasonably discriminate between the bad and the good is not the same as racial or gender discrimination. But, it's frequently treated as such, especially where the discrimination takes some politically incorrect form. Then, language is subverted, truth is denied and facts are determined to be disposable things—all in service of the greater good, of course. No need to worry, though, if we continue down this path, it won't be civilized for very long. Mark Magula